[People_Eater]

Glenn_Fleishman said:

>

Quote

Am I being thin-skinned about that? I don't see this nasty vitriol against guys most of the time.

In an effort to rectify that situation, please allow me to say that Rob Enderle is a giant poopy-head, and his father is Microsoft Bob.

[People_Eater]

Chris Breen said:

>

Quote

Or look at the pharmaceutical industry. Some of the drugs they come up with are great -- saving lives, easing suffering, etc. Do you suppose these companies would pursue that kind of work if there wasn't a hefty profit waiting at the end?

I was under the impression that most of the "invention" in pharmaceuticals is done in University research labs, and then rights to produce the drugs are then sold to the industry. In other words, they are generally created by those with an interest in research and new ideas as their primary motivators (and typically with government funding). They could just as easily be produced by a government health agency as part of a "universal healthcare" system.

I think the main thing the pharmaceutical companies do beside clinical trials, is marketing, and creating unnecessary demand for drugs to treat even imaginary conditions.

[People_Eater]

Chris Breen said:

It has no problem with failing to offer upgrades to iPods because they would prefer that you purchase a new iPod rather than upgrade an old one.

Say what?

I'd say that's more likely because of practicality. Do you really think it's practical to make an "upgradable" iPod? If you did, it probably wouldn't have such a slim form factor. It would also limit the ability to offer new features and innovations - as they would have to fit an existing form factor. No larger screens than the original, for example.

I don't think their primary motivator in designing the iPod the way it is, is to make you buy new models. They accomplish that much more easily by simly making better new models that people want to buy.

Anyway - does any company out there offer an "upgradable" personal music device?

Quote

So Apple is in it for the altruism? Isn't it possible that Apple dropped Macworld because it feels it's financially prudent to do so (and, thus, will make more money for the company and help stockholders)?

No, but I doubt the stockholders are their main focus. They want to profit themselves of course, and have a profitable company, but I don't think they are thinking about stockholders much. When was the last time they acted on somebody's suggestion from a stockholder's meeting?

Quote

You mean the Steve Jobs who swaps scoops for the cover of Time magazine? The man who has the power to corral the media with the drop of a single press event? That guy? Uh, no.

That's not much "face time" really. He does avoid media coverage. When was the last time he ever did an interview discussing his family matters and whatnot? He appears when he needs to, otherwise not. You really said it yourself, with his "ability to corral the media" - he's in charge. Other CEOs are desperate to get attention from the media of any sort. Steve does it on his own terms.

Quote

> ?What Apple cares about is whether or not you?ll be buying whatever gewgaw or iBauble it releases next.?
> I also responded to this earlier: this is not all that Apple cares about.

Really? If it's not interested in selling its wares, where do you suppose its interest lies? Curing cancer? Sending a man to mars. Staring at its navel?

Ummm, I'm beginning to worry about your reading comprehension. The other poster did not say that Apple is only interested in making great products. But you seem to be saying that all "Apple" cares about is selling wares, and not innovation at all. That simply can't be true. Because that approach opposes innovation. They need to care about both.

Quote

No one's suggesting that Apple is anti-customer or that it makes lousy products in an effort to rip off customers. It's just that the opposite isn't true either -- that Apple is driven only by the pursuit of excellence. It's a company that wants to do well and it believes producing quality products is the way to get there.

I don't think anybody ever claimed that Apple was only driven by the pursuit of excellence, so you appear to be responding to a strawman of your own creation.

[People_Eater]

Chris Breen said:

>

Quote

Oh sure. And it's only because of this molehill that Steve Jobs, a man who rarely admits a mistake, said MobileMe was not up to Apple's standards and "It was a mistake to launch MobileMe at the same time as iPhone 3G, iPhone 2.0 software and the App Store. We all had more than enough to do, and MobileMe could have been delayed without consequence."

I'd say that yes, that's exactly why Jobs responded. It was a screw-up, but the media really did make a mountain out of a molehill in that case. If there wasn't so much bad press, I doubt Jobs would have personally responded.

Also, Chris, what's up with the rudeness and holier-than-thou snarkiness in your recent posts? It's as if you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or something.

[Chris Breen]

>Do you really think it's practical to make an "upgradable" iPod?

We're talking software upgrades as you see in jumps between nano generations or from the 5G iPod to the iPod classic. My Mac is upgradeable. So is my iPhone. Why not the iPod?

>Anyway - does any company out there offer an "upgradable" personal music device?

Microsoft does. It's called the Zune.

>They want to profit themselves of course, and have a profitable company, but I don't think they are thinking about stockholders much.

They are thinking the same thing as the stockholders: Profit. And they understand that as long as they continue making a profit they can largely ignore any niggling demands stockholders make. Put profit aside in search for pure innovation and larger demands become harder to ignore.

>He does avoid media coverage. When was the last time he ever did an interview discussing his family matters and whatnot? He appears when he needs to, otherwise not.

I'd suggest that he appears when he wants to rather than needs to. When he wants a Time or Newsweek cover, he gets it. When he wants coverage in the WSJ or NYT he calls an event or calls a reporter out of the blue. As for family matters, that isn't and never was Steve. He's an intensely private person when it comes to his personal life. But professional life? No, he works the media better than just about anyone on earth.

>But you seem to be saying that all "Apple" cares about is selling wares, and not innovation at all.

I'll see your reading comprehension remark and raise you one. I said, "It's a company that wants to do well and it believes producing quality products is the way to get there."

>I'd say that yes, that's exactly why Jobs responded. It was a screw-up, but the media really did make a mountain out of a molehill in that case.

I'd file this under "shooting the messenger." The problem was Apple's, not the reporting of Apple's problem. Email is a big deal these days. For some people it's their primary means of communication and if you use it for business purposes, it's all that much more important. If you were one of the 1% of MobileMe customers who couldn't get email for several weeks, you'd likely feel this was more than a molehill -- particularly for a service that demands a $100 per annum subscription fee.

>It's as if you think everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or something.

I get snarky when smart people talk twaddle. We disagree in some areas but you're not talking twaddle. When someone says Apple had no hand in creating the Cult of Apple, Steve Jobs avoids the limelight, and that hacked hardware and unconventional software were the causes of OS, iLife, MobileMe, and hardware malfunctions, they're talking twaddle.

[People_Eater]

Chris Breen said:

>Do you really think it's practical to make an "upgradable" iPod?

We're talking software upgrades as you see in jumps between nano generations or from the 5G iPod to the iPod classic. My Mac is upgradeable. So is my iPhone. Why not the iPod?

Oh, if that's all you're talking about. Haven't several iPod models had firmware/software updates? They certainly seem capable of taking a firmware update, therefore "upgradable" by your definition.

Quote

They are thinking the same thing as the stockholders: Profit. And they understand that as long as they continue making a profit they can largely ignore any niggling demands stockholders make. Put profit aside in search for pure innovation and larger demands become harder to ignore.

Again, this is a completely meaningless comment. of course both want profit. That's like saying that water is wet. But they obviously don't let stockholders steer their actions - so how is it that stockholders are foremost in their mind? Can you imagine what Apple would be doing today if they took their stockholders' advice?

Quote

I'd suggest that he appears when he wants to rather than needs to. When he wants a Time or Newsweek cover, he gets it. When he wants coverage in the WSJ or NYT he calls an event or calls a reporter out of the blue. As for family matters, that isn't and never was Steve. He's an intensely private person when it comes to his personal life.

Right. And very few CEOs get away with that. Again, backing the opinion that Steve generally avoids the media.

But professional life? No, he works the media better than just about anyone on earth.

Quote

I'd file this under "shooting the messenger." The problem was Apple's, not the reporting of Apple's problem.

Yes, it was a problem. but the media was absolutely hysterical. I don't fault the media for reporting it. I fault them for the unhinged "Oh my God, Apple is doomed in online services" tone that was going on. You'd think an earthquake had just struck Infinite Loop from the level of hysterical reaction.

Quote

I get snarky when smart people talk twaddle. We disagree in some areas but you're not talking twaddle. When someone says Apple had no hand in creating the Cult of Apple, Steve Jobs avoids the limelight, and that hacked hardware and unconventional software were the causes of OS, iLife, MobileMe, and hardware malfunctions, they're talking twaddle.

I think you're exaggerating what he was saying. Some of it was poorly supported, but I think he made some valid points that disagreed with yours. Sometimes it's difficult to read subtleties in these kinds of conversations.

Cheers.

[Chris Breen]

People_Eater said:

Haven't several iPod models had firmware/software updates? They certainly seem capable of taking a firmware update, therefore "upgradable" by your definition.

Exactly. They are capable of taking a firmware update. But with these updates don't come additional features.

>But they obviously don't let stockholders steer their actions - so how is it that stockholders are foremost in their mind?

You're suggesting that "making shareholders money" and letting stockholders steer their actions are the same thing?

Quote

Right. And very few CEOs get away with that. Again, backing the opinion that Steve generally avoids the media.

Because he doesn't sit down with Barbara Walters and cry on TV? If you equate not discussing his personal life with avoiding the media, then yes. But that's not what we're talking about. Steve puts himself on stage and in front of cameras when it suits him. If he were media shy he could easily put his product managers and PR people on stage. He doesn't. It's his show and he likes to be the face of that show. And I think that's great. He's a wonderful presenter and god knows he can sell his point of view.

Quote

> I'd file this under "shooting the messenger." The problem was Apple's, not the reporting of Apple's problem.

Yes, it was a problem. but the media was absolutely hysterical. I don't fault the media for reporting it. I fault them for the unhinged "Oh my God, Apple is doomed in online services" tone that was going on. You'd think an earthquake had just struck Infinite Loop from the level of hysterical reaction.

I'm sure there were some bloggers who adopted that tone, but I don't recall it being the prevalent tone of the time. Jason Snell's When Apple's Reach Exceeds Its Grasp certainly mentioned MobileMe's problems but I didn't see any earthquake kind of tone. Mossberg wasn't happy with the results of his testing but he didn't claim Apple would never work it out. Pogue didn't like it either but he was mostly unhappy with the way Apple handled (or failed to handle) letting customers know about what was going on. So where's the hysteria?

> I think you're exaggerating what he was saying. Some of it was poorly supported, but I think he made some valid points that disagreed with yours. Sometimes it's difficult to read subtleties in these kinds of conversations.

I agree. Some of his point were valid. But others were "blame anyone but Apple" twaddle. And I have little patience for that kind of thing.

[People_Eater]

Chris Breen said:

>

Quote

Exactly. They are capable of taking a firmware update. But with these updates don't come additional features.

I don't have an intimate memory of the various updates, but I thought that some did. For example we got gapless playback in a firmware update, didn't we? Didn't the nanos include support for the Nike+ functionality via an update? Hasn't the iPod touch gotten a whole new OS via an update?

Quote

You're suggesting that "making shareholders money" and letting stockholders steer their actions are the same thing?

No, but you seemed to be stating it a lot stronger than that. That Apple's main motivation is for the stockholders. I don't think that's true. It's one goal, but I don't see any evidence that it's particularly high on their priorities list.

Quote

Because he doesn't sit down with Barbara Walters and cry on TV? If you equate not discussing his personal life with avoiding the media, then yes. But that's not what we're talking about. Steve puts himself on stage and in front of cameras when it suits him. If he were media shy he could easily put his product managers and PR people on stage.

Again, you're changing the terms. Avoiding the media (when it suits him) is not the same as being "media shy."

Quote

I'm sure there were some bloggers who adopted that tone, but I don't recall it being the prevalent tone of the time. Jason Snell's When Apple's Reach Exceeds Its Grasp certainly mentioned MobileMe's problems but I didn't see any earthquake kind of tone.

It was more than just "bloggers" the PC-centric press pounced on it as a "gotcha" for Apple.

I agree. Some of his point were valid. But others were "blame anyone but Apple" twaddle. And I have little patience for that kind of thing.

Fair enough. I just think you misread or mischaracterized some of his claims. I don't think as cut-and-dried as you say. Particularly the stuff about the "community" or "cult" - Apple has had a very mixed relationship with its users, and many of the perceptions didn't come directly from Apple.

[spinoza2]

?I get snarky when smart people talk twaddle. We disagree in some areas but you're not talking twaddle.?

What People-Eater is trying to bring out, Chris, is, 1) the problems created by your snide tone and apparent difficulty in having a reasonable exchange of ideas, and 2) that what I am saying is not ?twaddle? in the first place. I respect your right to disagree, but everything I've written here are valid statements worthy of discussion. Perhaps your hyper-reaction betrays your unease in the truth of what I'm saying.

You seem to be avoiding the issues I raise by your heated flaming, and by repeatedly shifting and changing the focus of what you're claiming. First you claim, as Macworld editor, that MobileMe was ?completely screwed up?, then you say that it wasn't unreasonable in its reporting of the MobileMe transition. What People-Eater and I are trying to get you to understand is that your initial claims, in defending McNulty's poorly written article, are so simplistic as to be meaningless. Your emotional reaction is only digging you deeper into a hole.

I can cite several examples, but here's a couple that you really seem to be having problems with: 1) when you say that Apple's bottom line is to make a profit and to be beholden to its shareholders, you're not saying anything about Apple since in a primitive way this is true of every company. The problem with McNulty's article is that he implies it as a negative attribute. And indeed, there are a lot of companies, perhaps the majority, who focus their efforts on profit and shareholder margins, and with innovation, design, high-quality products, customer service, etc etc, taking a back seat. As I've said, this is a big reason why the American economy is in such big trouble right now. But a whole category of companies: Bose, Bosch (and countless other German companies), Toyota, Apple, Sony, etc etc., believe that through all of these latter qualities (quality, design, service, etc) the company will be rewarded with profits and Wall Street accolades as a result of addressing consumer needs. This is a far cry from companies that sit in their board rooms and fret about how they can increase profits by any means necessary. It's called, in business parlance, the success in carrying out a company's mission statement and vision. In your agreeing with McNulty that Apple is just another big corporation in ?business suits?, what you really want to say is that Apple, in successfully following its corporate vision, has massively increased its market share because customers have responded to the quality of its products. You can't argue with success, and this does not make them just another company in business suits.

2) In like manner, a ?cult? has built up around Steve Jobs only because he has played a key role in Apple's success. The mass media have created this mystique because he is so focused on his work with Apple, and precisely because he has not played into this role the media has foisted upon him. There's a big difference in directly cultivating an image, Hollywood-like, and in having to deal with what the frenzied media fabricate. If you want to learn more about what this is about, take a look at Scorsese's No Direction Home, a documentary on Bob Dylan and what he went through in repeatedly disabusing the media of the frenzy they created around him. Your refusal to recognize that such a media problem arises through an individual's success, in your inability to recognize that Job's reputation is a result of his success, comes across as pure childish envy on your part.

I must admit that I find it surprising that this exchange has taken place with a senior editor for Macworld. First, that I'm the one having to summarize the reasons for Apple's success, and second, that a senior editor is having such problems carrying out a reasoned exchange. I'm aware that this is an informal forum, but there should be standards for civility here too (it's called Netiquette, I believe).

[RipRagged]

Finally. Now if we can just take the "Apple is rainbows and lollipops" meme out of discussions of technology and quality, maybe we can actually save the rest of the tech industry from itself.

[blankbaby]

Since I'm the one who wrote this article poorly I thought I would jump in and clarify one point.

spinoza2 said:

1) when you say that Apple's bottom line is to make a profit and to be beholden to its shareholders, you're not saying anything about Apple since in a primitive way this is true of every company. The problem with McNulty's article is that he implies it as a negative attribute.

I never said that a company going for profit was a bad thing, nor did I mean to imply it. I wrote this post mostly as a reaction to people shocked and horrified that Apple would 'abandon' the Mac community by pulling out of Macworld. It was a business decision plain and simple, as are most of the decisions that take place at Apple (and I've been on Apple's Cupertino campus, and met with a number of Apple employees, and some of them DO wears suits. Shocking, I know).

I'm all for Apple making money, because that's how (and why) they are able to make such great products (even given some of their missteps as of late).

My point is that Apple is a large company which many Mac fans seem to have a hard time grasping (though they don't seem to have that hard a time imagining Microsoft as a big company... wonder why that is!).

[Dan Moren]

spinoza2 said:

>What People-Eater and I are trying to get you to understand is that your initial claims, in defending McNulty's poorly written article, are so simplistic as to be meaningless.

I dispute that Scott's article is "poorly written." You may disagree with it, but I don't think there was anything wrong with the way he presented his argument.

Quote

I The problem with McNulty's article is that he implies it as a negative attribute. And indeed, there are a lot of companies, perhaps the majority, who focus their efforts on profit and shareholder margins, and with innovation, design, high-quality products, customer service, etc etc, taking a back seat. [...]. This is a far cry from companies that sit in their board rooms and fret about how they can increase profits by any means necessary. It's called, in business parlance, the success in carrying out a company's mission statement and vision. In your agreeing with McNulty that Apple is just another big corporation in ?business suits?, what you really want to say is that Apple, in successfully following its corporate vision, has massively increased its market share because customers have responded to the quality of its products. You can't argue with success, and this does not make them just another company in business suits.

I think we've kind of veered off into a philosophical discussion that diverges from the point of the article in the first place. I don't believe Scott's argument was to say that Apple's a big, nasty corporation intent upon screwing its customers so it can make money whatever the cost; rather, he's contending that Apple only cares about the consumer in so far as it's good for the company's bottom line. For example, if your iPod or your Mac breaks, and it's not your fault, Apple will replace it for you quickly and easily (though admittedly, sometimes it takes a little haggling). But it would be naive to suggest that they fix it because they like you as a person. No, they do it because they want to make you happy so you'll buy more stuff from them in the future. That's not cynicism, nor is it even "wrong"; it's just the way business works.

I don't believe Apple thought a whit about the community when it made its decision to withdraw from Expo. It made a decision based on the bottom line of business: how much does Expo cost and how much do they get out of it? That's a perfectly reasonable question for a business to ask, but some people have begun to believe that Apple is unlike other businesses in that it will altruistically ignore its bottom line to make nice. That is the perception that Scott is arguing against.

There was a great line in Buzz Andersen's C4 talk this year that I think summed it up rather brilliantly, if you'll permit my paraphrasing: when it comes to Apple, never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained by indifference.

[mr_rsu]

I can only hope that Apple doesn't become a Microsoft someday.
Let Apple be Apple, not just another computer company bucking the trends.

[iJay]

duh. they're ending it because jobs is sick to present the keynote but they don't want to tell anyone just yet so apple doesn't lose half of its value.

they pull out of macworld, there's no need to come up with excuses why jobs isn't there :P